Frank Salter on Stupid Open Borders Arguments

Frank Salter is a giant in the intellectual defense of White identity and interests. His book On Genetic Interestsis a breakthrough in providing a rigorous conception of ethnic interests based on evolutionary theory and modern research in genetics and the social sciences.

Salter has just published a wonderful article in Quadrant, an Australian neocon publication (“On misguided advocates of open borders“). It is a masterpiece of elegant argumentation and a complete trashing of his professorial opponent, the unfortunate Mirko Bagaric, who seems almost ludicrously unaware of the most basic academic literature bearing on the issue. The good news is that it’s an excellent introduction to Salter’s thinking–much recommended.

Prof. Bagaric believes that all the world’s ills could be solved if the poor people were allowed to immigrate to places like Australia. Instantly world poverty would be solved! What’s not to like?

Salter lists the downsides to this idea–all of which apply equally well to other Western societies similarly bent on open borders self-destruction. Diversity is associated with “reduced democracy, slowed economic growth, falling social cohesion and foreign aid, as well as rising corruption and risk of civil conflict.” Ethnic diversity is also associated with “reduced public altruism or social capital, evident in falling volunteerism, government welfare for the aged and sick, public health care and a general loss of trust. Ethnic diversity is second only to lack of democracy in predicting civil war. Globally it correlates negatively with governmental efficiency and prosperity.”

Critically, he points to “invidious ethnic stratification” as an inevitable result: “No one likes to be ruled over by a different ethnic group or to see his own people worse off than others. The result is resentment or contempt, depending on the perspective taken.”

Ethnocentrism is not a White disorder and evidence is emerging that immigrant communities harbour invidious attitude towards Anglo Australians, disparaging their culture and the legitimacy of their central place in national identity.

Sound familiar? These are all the things that Westerners can look forward to as they become minorities in the societies they built and dominated for hundreds of years. This resentment and contempt will produce enormous unrest in Western societies, and ultimately it will result in violence directed at White people perpetrated by ethnic groups with deep historical grudges against their erstwhile benefactors.

Salter also emphasizes the general point that everyone has rights and interests. People who argue for open borders argue solely from the rights and interests of people who (naturally) want to go to a place where they have a higher standard of living. They never take the perspective of the natives. Egocentrism writ large. As Salter argues, the open borders movement is profoundly immoral.

The other consistent strand of Salter’s thinking is that this horrifying state of affairs has resulted from the domination of elite forms of discourse by advocates for open borders among academic, media, and political elites.

The egregious standard of analysis behind open borders advocacy is not an aberration. It is deeply embedded at the elite level of Australian political culture. The problem lies with an influential tradition well established within the universities and intellectual class as a whole. … The rapid transformation of Australia by mass Third World immigration has been a top-down revolution in which exclusivist politicised circles within academia have been complicit by commission and omission.

There are other factors as well. For example, Salter points to a collusion of self-censorship on immigration by self-interested politicians bent on obtaining support from immigrant constituencies.

But the role of elite academics should never be underestimated. Not one Australian academic stood up to point out the shoddiness of Bagaric’s arguments. The revolution in the academic world that toppled Darwinian social science in favor of erecting the culture of critique is critical to the demise of White nation states. In my view, this revolution was at its core an ethnic revolution, resulting from the rise of a Jewish intellectual elite, Jewish ownership and influence in the media, and Jewish influence on the political process. It is not surprising that the revolution that caused the impending increase in ethnic hatred and conflict in Western societies was itself the result of ethnic hatred and conflict.

The power and rigor of Salter’s ideas are a huge asset in combating the suicidal tide sweeping all White countries.

96 Comments to "Frank Salter on Stupid Open Borders Arguments"

I was pleased that Quadrant published this excellent article. It is rightly characterised as a neo-con journal.

Indeed, it may still have the support of Peter Coleman, father-in-law to the Treasurer of the former Liberal government, member of the old elite and operatator of the shadowy ‘Australians For Honest Politics’. The latter seems to be a private intelligence service noted for dirty tricks ops against patriotic groups. It played a role in imprisoning Pauline Hanson of One Nation in 2003. It is close to the present Liberal Party Opposition Leader.

Quadrant has occasionally let a little truth through. However, it has also joined in the current LIberal Party game which has them ‘tough’ on refugees and unauthorised arrivals. So their motives in anything are always suspect.

That’s the tragic but in a way nifty thing about paranoia, wandrin. Any reality can be twisted and bent to fit the belief system.

If in actual fact more Jewish Americans oppose further immigration of Moslems or Mexicans than favor it, then **that** would be part of a grand plan to destroy “white people” (by cutting off heir supply of taxi drivers and landscapers?).

jews as an ethnic group support the immigration-genocide of white people because they individually see it as in their interests to destroy us.

It doesn’t require that all jews agree or that they have to take a vote.

Most people, if their kid fell in a river would jump in to save them. That is **not** an official human position, no one ever voted to decide that was what you did in that situation, it’s a product of nature in the same way ethnic competition and conflict is a product of nature.

jews striving for the extermination of white people through an immigration-genocide is just one specific example of natural human conflict.

Barb, Wyoming, the home of Teapot Dome, is a long way from anywhere. How old were you the first time you saw a Jew?

You are right that David Gelbaum, the son of a math professor, put strings on his extensive contributions to the Sierra Club regarding its position on immigration. I doubt this has to do with his being Jewish but it does show that one can be a genius or saint in one area and blinded by sentimentality or just a victim of defective reasoning in another.

He says he’s honoring his immigrant grandfather–as if today’s immigrants legal and otherwise were coming to the same America as existed in 1900! This is **not** an official Jewish position on the issue. The most prominent spokesman for immigration control is Ira Mehlman of FAIR.

Libertarian nationalism would respect and reward those who uphold the concepts and standards of Western civilization and the libertarian ideology of America’s founders, and punish those who do not, irrespective of race.

“irrespective of race”? I guess that means that you like the idea of permitting non-whites to remain inside of White living space, doesn’t it?

Until the races have been separated, do you think that black men, as a matter of personal freedom, should be legally be allowed to have sexual relations with White women and impregnate them? You still have not answered that question yet. I’ll continue to ask it.

By the way, what the Founding Fathers wanted isn’t relevant for us today.

barb, I too believe earth is cooling and is entering another major ice age. Since the Geophysical year ice core drilling expeditions to Greeland and Antartica in the early 60s scientists have known we are about to enter a major (100,000 to 200,000 year) ice age. Warming periods, like the one we are currently leaving, last about 12,000 (10,000 – 15,000) years. Populations that flourish during warm periods are reduced by catastrophic earth changes that accompany the onset of an ice age as the competition/struggle for survival intensifies.

Much of the data from the tax-funded geophysical research is still classified and knowledge is restricted to elite jews who have planned accordingly. (NWO is a ruse unless new world order is understood as new ice age.)

Much of the currently populated landmass of the northern hemisphere, Canada, Alaska, Siberia, Iceland, Greeland, Northern Europe, Russia and North America will be under 2 miles of ice. This relatively sudden change will cause tremendous worldwide destruction, loss of life and mass migration of animals and humans to warmer equatorial regions.

This has happened many times before and is what the jews/elites don’t want us to know. They plan to sit it all out in secure underground bases to safely reemerge after the majority of humanity (80 – 90%) has been wiped out.

Contrary to what is commonly believed major climate change happens suddenly which is why mammoths have been found flash frozen with chewed flowers preserved in their teeth.

Frankly, with this miserable long, cold, wet, snowy fall/winter/spring we’ve just endured, I’m a little disappointed to find out that APG warming was all a big fat fraud. WAAA! This is looking to turn out to be the Year without a Summer, too!

@Engel, “For example, Andrew lamely tries to disparage genetic engineering as Star Trek stuff, centuries off if it happens at all. That’s just not the case. Gene therapies are currently in use in hundreds of clinical trials right now, today.”

Perhaps you can give examples of research or experiments that are changing the human genome. In my ignorance, I have not come across any. Gene therapy that will affect a disease will not affect the genetic code of future generations.

“Now, modifying DNA to cure disease is, in principle, no different than modifying it to manipulate intelligence or other personality characteristics. Certainly within a few decades, and perhaps much sooner, it will be possible to re-write the genome at will, and make such changes.”

I am not sure what your qualifications are to make such grandiose predictions and prophecies. Perhaps you are a geneticist, futurist and/or modern prophet. But to me, you sound like someone who has only a vague understanding of the current state of man’s knowledge of DNA. DNA code is not simple, its not just a matter of a few proteins coding for a certain trait, which you can cut and paste to make your own DNA string. The human genome project was surprising, because there is much less DNA than was previously thought. This means that different sections of DNA work together in combinations that we do not understand, and probably can never understand. If you were a fearless DNA engineer, and wanted to build the perfect human, and busily went around cutting and pasting DNA to create it, you would very likely find you had created a massive FUBAR. Changing a small gene sequence somewhere can result in any number of problems, because that gene sequence interacts with other parts of the genome in unknown ways. Splice in genes for blue eyes and you may cause infertility or a predisposition to cancer, because you unknowingly deleted something that interacted with something else.

The fact is we have a huge code, and we understand only a teeny tiny fraction of a percent of what everything does. We also have no real way of discovering what things do, because we learn mainly by observation (we compare DNA with phenotypes, like we find what all blue-eyed people have in common in their DNA, then we can say that DNA sequence codes for blue eyes).

Yes, there are probably therapies that can affect a particular gene sequence to fix a certain disease, which involves changing 0.0000000000000000001% of your DNA. Thats a far cry from genetic engineering future generations. Perhaps you know something that our current crop of genetic scientists do not though. In that case, I suggest you compile your research and apply for a nobel prize.

“You also don’t understand that the rate of increase in knowledge and genetic engineering capability is exponential, not linear; you don’t have a sense of how rapidly the technical capabilities are changing.”

I guess at this rate of growth we will have warp drives by the end of the century as well, as no doubt our understanding of physics is increasing at a similar rate of growth, and will never stop. You seem to believe that the human brain is capable of any feat, that all knowledge is attainable.

“Consequently, it doesn’t even occur to you that, when that fast-approaching day arrives when these things are completely understood, it will spell the end of race.”

This is the real point of your ideas, that you believe White Nationalism is silly, because race will eventually cease to exist due to your prophecies of amazing technological marvels. Thus you have no concern of the displacement of Whites, comforted as you are by your plentiful supply of science fiction novels.

For realists though, there are causes for concern.

“Andrew also goes on to opine, ludicrously, that humans have undergone no significant genetic changes since ancient times, and will undergo no significant changes for centuries into the future. Needless to say, he offers no evidence for this, and he can’t because it’s obvious nonsense.”

Perhaps you will share your evidence that there have been significant changes in the genome since the days of the Romans. I noted that there have probably been changes, the selection pressures for German barbarians are different from medieval peasants. But I propose that these have not been significant changes. I hope that you will help me to dispel my ignorance by directing me to informative articles that correct my erroneous ideas.

“There is no one gene for intelligence, there are likely hundreds or thousands that correspond to it. Same with personality traits. We are far, far away from that level of sophistication.”

You accept the logic of the argument, but want to quibble about the number of years it’s going to take? That’s idiotic. Even if it takes, say, a hundred years, then that means that the White race has only a hundred years left. As I said, with friends like these, it needs no enemies.

We have to face the likelihood that it may be collectively too stupid to survive.

“The same boring sophomoric drivel.”

If you can’t refute the evidence or the logic, make an ad hominem attack. You guys are an embarrassment. Clearly, MacDonald needs a better class of sycophant.

Der weiße Engel talks just a wee bit like Adam did, with his thoughts that technology will destroy all the Human Races.

We’ll know if Der weiße Engel is Adam if he starts saying that someone must destroy the Global Technological System, evidently on the off hope that someone reading this Blog will have the ability to get that job done…

There is no one gene for intelligence, there are likely hundreds or thousands that correspond to it. Same with personality traits. We are far, far away from that level of sophistication. This isn’t the same thing about spending several painstaking years to identify a single gene that turns on/off some receptor that contributes to a disease.

The one who accuses others of not knowing what they are talking about is the one who speaks ignorance.

Too bad, because his response was uninformed nonsense. Clearly, with such ignorant friends, the White race doesn’t need any enemies. It is doomed no matter what the Jews do or don’t do.

For example, Andrew lamely tries to disparage genetic engineering as Star Trek stuff, centuries off if it happens at all. That’s just not the case. Gene therapies are currently in use in hundreds of clinical trials right now, today. Cures for many types of diseases and defects have already been worked out and will hit the market within a few years. So it’s not science fiction. It’s already being done. Now, modifying DNA to cure disease is, in principle, no different than modifying it to manipulate intelligence or other personality characteristics. Certainly within a few decades, and perhaps much sooner, it will be possible to re-write the genome at will, and make such changes.

Of course, being ignorant and knowing little about these things, both of you will no doubt be inclined to applaud these as advances. You also don’t understand that the rate of increase in knowledge and genetic engineering capability is exponential, not linear; you don’t have a sense of how rapidly the technical capabilities are changing. Consequently, it doesn’t even occur to you that, when that fast-approaching day arrives when these things are completely understood, it will spell the end of race. For what will racial characteristics matter when they can be erased and re-written at will? And consider, what do you think the elites will do when they are given such ability?

Andrew also goes on to opine, ludicrously, that humans have undergone no significant genetic changes since ancient times, and will undergo no significant changes for centuries into the future. Needless to say, he offers no evidence for this, and he can’t because it’s obvious nonsense. I’ve already mentioned what the future holds. As for his claims about the past, to believe it, you’d have to believe that the culture hasn’t changed at all since ancient times, for what is culture but the human environment, which is itself nothing but the sum total of selection pressures? If selection pressures for various characteristics have changed through the millennia, as they certainly have, then the genome has also changed. The emergent option to re-write the genome in various ways can only accelerate the rate of these changes, which perforce accelerates the destruction of the White race even more.

Oh, and the Sierra Club, which used to be anti-immigration, was hijacked by, surprise, a Jew who gave them a whole bunch of money to shut up about it.

With the toxic influence of Jews gone, Whites can rebuild on the fine ideas that Sierra Club once embraced, such as conserve open spaces, clean air so future generations can behold such splendor and feast their European souls, also.

Dorothea,
I agree with just about all you say.
I’ve just come to see it all, (peak oil, enviro goofiness, including the climate-change nonsense) not as our doom, but as our deux ex machina game-changer that will provide our opportunities to toss off our parasites.

Something like this: Chemotherapy works because, while it kills all cells, it kills overreaching, overgrowing, voracious cells (cancer) faster.

We Whites are like the healthy cells in a cancer-ridden body. We have to endure the chemo of things like goofy economy-killing cap and trade schemes because our cancer cells (the Jewish financiers) are more susceptible than WE are.
Jews can’t live without money, without a healty productive people to sponge off of. They NEED globalism and cheap labor with themselves at the top, just as cancer cells are voracious about nutrients. And when the system collapses and they can no longer live like pharoahs, they’ll collapse themselves, just as cancer cells are killed by chemo.

And the internet with sites like this are the chemo-injectors to save our people.

WE, however, I believe, are capable of self-reliance; we’ve just forgotten. We ARE capable of surviving the coming chemo of econ collapes. When the multiple crises upon crises really hit, we’ll remember who family is, band together and turn our anger where it belongs, in the process becoming a healthy people once again.

That’s why I LOVE that Peak OIl is upon us. Offshoring of manufacturing is a thing who’s time has come and gone. And when the struggle for the rare resource of oil gets into high gear, the Jews will not be able to brave the White-hot anger, as well as the sudden loss of their fancy, but ultimately dependent, lifestyles, and will leave.
History always repeats.

Barb; I’m totally on board with nuclear energy and energy independence but environmentalists won’t let you build nuclear power stations. From what I’ve read tidal energy would require a capital investments greater than those for coal or gas power stations;could only generate twice a day at set times and the distribution the of energy and maintenance of parts would be expensive. We still need oil for petrochemicals,plastics, fertilisers etc. This whole discussion started out with the comment that now non-gentiles have taken over American scientific institutitutions, they have been corrupted and co-opted to serve the interests of non-gentile bankers and the white oligarchy. eg. the climate change nonsense. NASA used to be a fantastic institution but now it exists to publicise ridiculous claims with fraudulent science to keep people in a state of fear so that they accept more and more government intervention in their lives. This attitude to science runs contrary to that of whole of Western civilisation. Non-gentiles have now taken over, manipulated and ruined the American economy,your system of free enterprise,your education system and universities and your scientific institutions. My question remains ;is this perverse behaviour the result of genetic or cultural differences or is there more? How come non-gentiles seem to destroy everything that is good? I firmly believe that the world is about to enter the worst Great Depression ever. The non-gentiles will try to have us believe that this is a failure of capitalism so they can institute state communism/capitalism a la China.Now that they have succeeded in destroying the Catholic Church,the nation state and the family their job will be much easier. The cause of the next depression isthe same aws the last ; fiat money and the use by non-gentiles of compound interest on loans; usury

Today, the Left has essentially modified Marxism from a Darwinian class analysis to an anti-White, Darwinian class-racial analysis wherein the (middle and lower middle class) White masses are largely evil, the non-White masses are good, and a certain class of elite “progressive” Whites (and neocon Whites) are good. Ironically, the “good” Whites are comprised of a relatively wealthy, insular elite, which turns the original class basis of Marxism on its head. Indeed, in this modified Marxism, a certain type of wealthy Whites can be good — the wealthy, “progressive” Jewish and Judaized neocon type of Whites willing to cut the throats of all other Whites either through open borders, or through sacrificing them in Middle Eastern wars for Jewry.

But these limousine liberal and neocon Whites themselves could be said to be playing a Darwinian game of realpolitik, which itself should draw admiration from Darwinian White supremacists — all of which is why I reject White nationalism in favor of libertarian nationalism, as any Darwinian contest has to respect the ultimate “winner” as the “superior” in a survival-of-the-fittest contest, regardless of how dirty or underhandedly they might have played.

Libertarian nationalism would respect and reward those who uphold the concepts and standards of Western civilization and the libertarian ideology of America’s founders, and punish those who do not, irrespective of race. Ultimately, this is the only way to preserve Whites, too, as it would punish back-stabbing, cut-throat Whites getting their strings pulled by Jewry and Judeo supremacist concepts and ideologies, be they openly Jewish supremacist (neoconservatism) or crypto Jewish supremacist (modified, racialized limousine liberal Marxism).

“KM is no White Power guy – he is above all Anti-Jewish. That’s his whole schtick. He can’t get one Jewish friend, and”

Let’s take stock. You tell us Frank Salter is a Jew. (Not that you’ve provided any evidence, but just for the sake of argument let’s assume you are right.) Then you say that KM can’t get even one Jewish friend.

Since Frank Salter provided a review of Culture of Critique and has defended KM against the anti-Semitism charges, I’d say that counts as pretty friendly. So are you now going to retract your statement that Frank Salter is a Jew or are you going to retract your statement that KM can’t even get one Jewish friend?

I’m a Wyomingite born and bred. I know the history of our oil resources here. I’m also not an oil-co basher. Nor am I a Gaia nutjob. But I AM realistic. Bit of history: One of the most productive oil fields in U.S. was Salt Creek here in WY. (In fact, as a result Casper used to be nicknamed the Oil Capital of the country.) It, along with fields in Texas, OK and Penn, provided the vast bulk of U.S. production in the 20s when U.S was a net oil exporter. Salt Creek peaked in the ’70. UW has spent millions on tertiary recovery. Nonetheless, the field has only declined since. (There was a slight bump up when Anadarko started injecting CO 2, but nothing like the good ol’ days, and now it’s back on its old decline rate.) If you talk to oil people in the other states, you’ll hear the same kinds of stories. The onshore drilling that goes on today is looking for the dribs and drabs here and there. The onshore giant fields we need to make a significant contribution to supplies have already been found. And tapped out. More drilling onshore will find more dribs and drab — Even Bakken in ND. Those wells are exceedingly expensive to drill, not because of enviro regs, but because the rocks are tight. So tight that each well requires expensive, technically difficult horizontal drilling and chemical fracking. Oil needs to be approaching $100 a barrel to make them economic.

–And Bakken has been known about for decades.–

But it was never drilled because the oil is too hard to get to be able to do it cheaply and requires challenging techniques, not due to enviro regs.

Nonetheless, the minute oil started climbing in the early 2000s, such that CEOs projected the market price to eventually climb enough to make those wells economic, the drilling boom in ND commenced.

So it wasn’t enviro regs — they didn’t change. It was the market price.

So, even despite enviro regs, oil cos. will drill if they think there’s oil there that they can get and sell for a profit.

But do YOU like $4 / gal gasoline? Of course not. But that’s what we’ll have to pay if we are going to rely on Bakken. So BP went far offshore, hard as it is to drill there, because that’s the only unexplored places left on earth where there might be undiscovered bonanza-quantity fields. So even if the earth is a creamy nougat of oil, it is going to be so unfathomably deep that we can’t handle the pressures. If we try to go get it, we’ll have lots more utter catastrophes like this thing.

“If the earth does run out of oil I’m sure we will find a sustitute if necessary.” Yes, and here’s the substitute: Ocean energy. Again, we can, with not-terrifying levels of infrastructure -building, put turbines offshore, both wind and underwater in the Gulf Stream, to make electricity to crack water and bond it with nitrogen to make ammonia to burn in passenger car engines. We’ll also need to build nuke power plants to electrify the rails system for goods transport.

But the best part, besides the enviro aspects, is this: If we as a country of White people are energy-independent, we can tell the non-Whites in the rest of the world, “Too-bad-for-you. We don’t need your oil.” Because Dorothea, that’s all those people have to offer. Without us as a market for their oil, they’ll starve. Because they’ve overbred beyond what they can do to feed themselves. They’ve bred up to the point that they must sell oil to buy enough food to feed the vast masses of them –because they CANNOT feed themselves. If we don’t buy their oil, their population will have to decline. Which, frankly, is Good for Whites. (It goes without saying that we’ll have to grow some stones and keep the hordes out of our countries.) I love the idea of being energy-independent because I don’t like funding my enemies.

Barb and Rick; The only reason that BP was drilling in such deep waters is that because of environmental legislation they are not allowed to drill on land or in shallow water. Also, because of legislation, it is now not worth the oil companies while to invest in upgrading their drilling machineryin the Gulf. In the 70’s we had a world population of 2 billion people and they were going on about peak oil then. 40 years and 4 billion people later they are still going on about peak oil, so forgive me if I’m sceptical. For some strange reason the best science these days seems to be coming out of Russia. Russian scientists have been warning us for some time that we are possibly entering a period of global cooling which will be much worse for humanity than any possibe warming. If people find themselves freezing to death and starving because of crop failures they are going to get very mad at Governments which confiscated their money to prepare for global warming! Britain has invested heavily in windmills. Last winter a high pressure system was stationary over Britain resulting in extremely cold weather and no wind! The windmills, which are a blight on the landscape, produced not one watt of power Russian scientists also believe in abiotic oil;that is oil which is continuously being produced in the earth’s mantle. I do not have enough of a scientific background to affirm whether this is true or not but to me it seems more logical than the idea of it being produced by billions and billions of insects being crushed to death over millions of years. I also believe in a providential God and not in a pagan Gaia. If the earth does run out of oil I’m sure we will find a sustitute if necessary. If you really have an open mind about climate change please read the blog ‘Watts Up With That ‘on http://wattsupwiththat.com/

We are halfway there. I agree about the liberal parasites BUT you have to agree that the Nordics here are closed as canned sardines when it comes to accepting Jews as Whites, and they are stuck playing double games about “racial reality”.

KM is no White Power guy – he is above all Anti-Jewish. That’s his whole schtick. He can’t get one Jewish friend, and that’s a sign that he has a serious problem. He’s living in a bubble. He doesn’t care about Jews and our real situation, he just cares about vilifying us. He doesn’t write books about how Jews help build societies, only how they destroy. Nor is there anything for him other than destructive Jews – he refuses to open up to historical reality – he reads his own fiction.

I am for Jews that are White, to assume their Whiteness and stop acting against it. But you are sorely mistaken if you think that Jews are the only ones who do this, and are the source of the problem. And that’s the reason I am here – the Nordics here and Jew-obsessiveness are destroying the Whites as much as the liberals, because they are inciting a civil war and undermining Racial reality.

“Once you accept changing White genetics for any reason, the game is lost. Re-engineering the White genome means that you accept, in principle, that preserving the White race as it currently exists is not desirable.”

I think you are starting to lose your grasp of the issue at hand, which for most White Nationalists is to preserve our White genepool as it exists now to the extent that is possible.

At this point, talk of re-engineering the genome is equivalent to planning for the development of the Warp drive, boldly exploring the galaxy and having space battles with Klingons. In other words, it is science fiction/fantasy. For one thing, there are a lot of problems with it, including the lack of research and testing being done to develop it, and the major barriers to human testing (testing on babies tends to outrage the population of advanced nations). This very complicated endeavor might very well be beyond the capability of human science (many things are). However, even if such technology was invented (the ability to reliably move around human genes), the people who have children are overwhelmingly not interested in it (especially as it is the religious people doing most of the procreation). People have many options today for affecting their children, such as choosing the gender of their children (or using a sperm bank), and very few people choose those options.

The expectation that the human genome is going to change drastically by re-engineering or some other unorthodox manner is ill-founded, because it is very unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future (and I mean the next century). Therefore, planning for the future based on this type of fantastical scenario is unwise.

“Catch 22: The White genome is changing all the time anyway as the environment changes.”

While the genome is no doubt undergoing change, these are fairly small changes. Humans today are very similar to those of the medieval and ancient world. Whatever changes have happened have not been very dramatic. If your DNA was compared to that of your medieval ancestors, we wouldnt see a whole lot of difference. Similarly, the most probable future outcome is that if you had any descendants that existed a few centuries from now, they would also be very genetically and phenotypically similar to you (assuming there is no interbreeding with non-Whites).

As a side note, you represent the success of your distant ancestors in pursuing their genetic interests. You are the only thing that they have left behind, just about everything else they worked for or built is now broken, gone or lost. The least that the current generation can do is carry on this achievement, leaving behind another generation that will carry the torch, and doing what is possible to safeguard their future (allowing them to face a new Zimbabwe by bequeathing them a multicultural US is probably not responsible).

Our responsibility, and our goal should be, to accomplish what all the previous generations of Whites have been able to do, which is to keep the line going. No one is trying to achieve an exact stasis in the genome, but we are trying to keep it in as good a shape as possible under the circumstances. Allied to this goal for our ethnic group is each person’s individual goal to maintain their family line, which is the hope that future generations will carry our unique genes into the future, so there will be something of us living on the earth long after our bones have turned to dust (descendants that carry our actual genes).

Der weiße Engel says: “Reducing the question of EGI to essentials, either you are unconditionally for preserving the White race as it currently exists, with all its warts and blemishes, or you are not. If you are not, then the fact that you may mean well with all your list of putative “improvements” doesn’t make you any less of an exterminationist.”

Edmund Burke had the opposite view: that which is without the means of amending itself is without the means of conserving itself.

That might be true of forms of government, but in the context of eugenics, this Burkean rhetorical flourish makes about as much sense as the Vietnam-era phrase “It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.” Once you accept changing White genetics for any reason, the game is lost. Re-engineering the White genome means that you accept, in principle, that preserving the White race as it currently exists is not desirable. It would mean that for you, race is not the highest value, but some other thing.

Catch 22: The White genome is changing all the time anyway as the environment changes. The only way to hold it constant would be to completely control selection pressures, and the only way to do that, if it’s even possible, would be to impose a cultural stasis backed by a totalitarianism almost beyond imagining.

If a fatal flaw in your operating system has been discovered and is being exploited to destroy your system, patching it is not “exterminationist” and leaving the gate open till your system is reduced to ruin is not “conserving” anything.

But here you are making the assumption that redesigning White genetics is the only possible response. That’s not the case. You could kill the attacker, for example. If we rule that out for some reason, in the instant case of Jews and Whites, the higher Jewish ethnocentrism most likely would be defended against by discovering its genetic basis, and modifying the White genome to incorporate the corresponding changes; i.e., making Whites more like Jews. But in my view, making Whites genetically Jewier isn’t a good option. If you think that’s desirable, you may as well do it the old-fashioned way.

I’m starting to think you’re a teenage boy who ought to be studying his algebra, not playing on the computer.

Whites are under siege. We don’t need “friends” like you who suggest we go around shooting random half-breeds.

Really, you beg us for acceptance because you’re half-White, you say. But it seems your purpose in coming here — and maybe your entire reason for living, for all I know — is to insult us.

In respect for your White half, assuming you really have one, here’s a bit of helpful advice: Read the book by Dale Carnegie: How to Win Friends and Influence People. Go read it, and let us grownups talk.

You guys seemed to have missed the reference, but then when it suits you, the Jew is suddenly your best friend. Sir, do you think if the organized jewish community (as represented by teh jewish elite, media, ADL, WJC, etc) behaved like Salter that most of us would have a problem? And no sensible person would hate Salter just because he was jewish.

Do you think are objections are because you guys wear funny hats and read the bible backwards??

Come on, as repeatedly said the Jewish elite -supports liberal open border policies – both neocons and the left – and in turn support a jewish identity state. Find a WASP elite person who does the same to protect his own ingroup -

First, it’s great, this Peon to a Jew like Salter. You guys seemed to have missed the reference, but then when it suits you, the Jew is suddenly your best friend.

And no Dorothy, Rick is no idiot. He made a very solid and good suggestion to you lame bunch (I mean you and L, not the others here, because they actually are smart). Let me translate what he says:

here’s a hint to hobos, if you want to stop immigration, try the environmental movement and their arguments. You might find it surprisingly effective.

@Aaron.

I don’t exactly appreciate how you’ve been called a philospher and pooh-poohed.

I think you made a great point.

However, I disagree with you – I think you are wrong to seperate genetics from ethnics and biology. Your assumption is that they can be seperated, and this is the wrong assumption. They are part and parcel. One example:

you breed with a nigger. Your kid is half stupid. Now you see a nice hook-nose like me and you skipping as he does his zemiros- his little peysot swinging in the wind – la la la la baruch atah adonoi. now you get a sudden urge, a tick, whatever – you’ve got a shot gun and you gotta kill one of these buggers.

One half-idiot, has 50% genes of the Chosen (Levi’s jeans…not enough to undo the nigger part), another 100% – you’ve got a tick – drum roll please, with a bit of music from Bad, Good, and the Ugly. You’re doing the triple dance – who do you shoot?

Aaron, the zemiros guy is closer to you genetically, than the mulatto. There’s your family, biology, genetics and ethnics all tied into one.

Now you don’t know Zemiros boy, and yet you are unlikely to simply pull the trigger on him. Yet your half-idiot, is right there.

Now if you think you get the picture – don’t rush. Here’s the point: inverse the kids, and see how quickly you’ll pull the trigger.

It’s not only Scandinavian countries where White men have become wimps. It seems to have occurred in all White countries.

The after effects of those two monstrous world wars is the best theory I can come up with. The real winners finally got to steal Palestine, gain complete control of our cultures, etc, etc, and we got . . . what?

It is only since the advent of the Internet that any useful information on the gradual displacement of Whites in all their countries has become freely available to any White person with the inclination to search for it. The mainstream disinformation media is never going to tell us the truth on that topic (and many others, of course), and anyone who thinks the traitors posing as our elected representatives are going to tell us the truth, is living in an alternate universe.

So we are being displaced around the world, not only in Scandinavian countries, and where are the White men standing up against their coming irrelevance? Doing sensitivity training courses?

The only opposition I am aware of is among we the ‘keyboard warriors’, and that’s not much opposition at all, really. And an unattractive (and most likely infiltrated) community group here and there, e.g. BNP.

I’d like to see someone write an essay on the ultimate futility of keyboard warriorism. It’s a thought I’d rather not dwell on, but it too has a sense of wimpishness about it.

Oh well, must run, it’s time for my Wonders of Diversity training course.

Someday “Why is it that when you get to a certain level in society – say upper middle class – the extreme liberals are in such a majority?”

Education acts as a gateway to the upper middle class and aims to block heretics. Many of the conservative upper middle class will have entered via a non social science route.

The proportion of the upper middle class involved in some way with the state has massively increased. In the past a much larger proportion would be involved in private business and have a world-view that matched. Left-liberalism is its own reward. It both creates the social sciences and creates endless jobs for people with social science degrees.

The set of ideas promoted in the social sciences and later incorporated into all the softer degrees were designed to weaken the group cohesion and ethno-centricity of white people to the advantage of jews. The strategy was very successful hence disproportionate large numbers of very liberal jews in the upper middle class.

I do think there’s another explanation as well. What are the components of a jewish left-liberal? If you imagine someone who feels separate from and cleverer than the bulk of the population they live among and if that person also feels a certain hostility to, or at least lack of empathy with, that population it might easily lead them to take contrary positions to whatever the population believes as a form of quiet aggression.

So i think there’s definitely a “type” of high IQ, low empathy, personality that would create a left-liberal caste of cultural critiquers independently.

Barb you have a good point, and I agree we will eventually have to deal with peak oil. As far as climate change, if it is a reality we might have to deal with a huge influx of environmental refugees into the United States. I think it is an issue we should look at seriously. I’d like to create a better planet/America for our children, not a third world cesspool and on that I’m sure we are on the same page. Children need a healthy environment to play in, explore, hunt, and develop an appreciation for the natural world. I also think natural space is important to the psychological well being of European whites.

Response to “me”: Although I think the Rolling Stone is Jewish owned they do have good articles. In the June 24th issue of Rolling Stone they have an interesting story about the Obama administrations cozy relationship with big oil and BP. You make a valid point that Jewish liberals are less apt to criticize Jewish own businesses. Thanks for the response.

Criticism of the Corporate agenda is common in Jewish liberal circles Should read:Criticism of gentile owned Corporate agenda is common in Jewish liberal circles You don’t hear much criticism of Jewish owned business and business practices. In fact when Rolling Stone had articles on Goldman Sachs they were, of course, accused of anti semitism.

Well, Rick, Whether the postulated climate change, IF actually occurring, and IF actually occuring in the direction of warming, and IF actually occuring due to human activity, is true or false…

is a moot point, anyway. Solve for Peak OIl, you automatically solve for carbon emissions. The solutions to Peak Oil are: nuclear power for cities and electrified trains for goods transport, and ocean energy-generated liquid fuels for passenger cars. These things, chosen because they are fully implementable and scalable, just so happen to be carbon-emission free.

Barb and Dorothea. I respect your opinions however I still remain unconvinced that man made climate change is a hoax. Just like there is a powerful Jewish elite in the United States there is probably a powerful WASP elite who’s power is consolidated around corporate ownership. Criticism of the Corporate agenda is common in Jewish liberal circles and some of this criticism may be indeed warranted. With that in mind we should at least consider the possibility that the science of man made climate change is threatening to a corporate elite’s sense of power and superiority just as evolutionary psychology threatens the sensibilities of the Jewish elite. If this science of climate change is indeed a threat to the corporate elite we would expect a backlash. Just a hypothesis.

What is up with Edgar Steele being charged in a murder-for-hire? Is this a credible story? Knowing the enemies he has it’s hard not to believe he was set up. The story I read paints him hatefully using all the usual cliches, e.g., supporting hate groups, white supremicist, and judging from comments people are typically wanting him burned at the stake. It really stinks of a jewish set-up. Sadly it makes me think there aren’t many out there supporting white racial consciousness or even caring to consider it.

U.S. used to be a petroleum exporter when Texas and WY fields were young. Those fields reached peak production in the 70s, and despite the bilions of research dollars spent on tertiary recovery, those fields have only declined since.

As a result, we are dependent on foreign oil — which is to say, we are dependent on oil from the Middle East being shipped through the Straits of Hormuz. One of the arguments the neocons have used to insist why OUR TAX DOLLARS, to the tune of $3 billion a year in foreign aid, plus untold amounts more in the form of wink-wink loans, should be sent to Israel is so we can “have an unsinkable aircraft carrier’ to keep the oil flowing from the Middle East through the Straits of Hormuz.

IF we could end our reliance on foreign oil, we could tell the Middle East, including Israel, to go pound sand and save those tax dollars. Those saved tax dollars could go a very long way to promoting Affordable White Family Formation and boosting the White birthrate.

Your tax dollars, because of the oil in the Middle East we think we need so bad, are subsidizing your very dispossession.

Windmills offshore work because the wind blows, essentially, constantly.

No, venture capitalists have NOT jumped on offshore windmills because they (being largely Jewish, and thus pro-Israel, knowing which side their bread is buttered on) do NOT want America to be energy-self-sufficient. (And because, up to now, the cheapest energy has come from giant Ghawar — but with it in decline, that will change.)

Barb,
At present, all energy alternatives have to be subidised and I detest Governments taking my tax money and investing it in unprofitable industries to enrich the pockets of their unscruplous allies. Windmills are so medieaval.
If an alternative energy source was viable, believe you me, capitalist entrepreneurs would risking their own money to develop it.
As the original founder of Greenpeace said environmental movement has been hi-jacked by anti-capitalist fascists; in other words communists.
Why did all our factories go to China?Because environmental legislation made it too expensive for companies to operate in the USA I’m sure all those longterm unemployed in Pitsburgh would trade some pollution for a steady job.
I don’t believe in peak oil. I do believe that human ingenuity freed from bureaucratic restictions allied with Divine Providence enables us to solve all our problems

While I agree with you that the “science” of global warming — scientific fraud through and through – makes a mockery of the scientific method,

there IS a pro-White argument for environmentalism — just not the hooey the lefties propagate. Pro-White environmentalism is more correctly called “conservation.”

BP’s disaster is due to the fact that they are drilling in exceedingly difficult conditions, under 5000 ft of water and then 30000 more feet, below the ocean bottom. The pressures are inconceivable. We are trying to drilll in an environment at the very edge of our technical ability — and, ooooops, tipped over. But the reason BP is drilling far offshore is because the easy-to-get oil is tapped out.

Rational pro-White environmentalism would have us looking for OTHER sources of energy. For instance: Matt Simmons — author of Twilight in the Desert, which makes the case the Sauds DON’T have the oil reserves they say they do, that in fact Ghawar is in decline, which means Peak Oil is upon us — is the founder of Ocean Energy Institute.

Ocean energy, in the forms of offshore windmills, turbines in the Gulf Stream and others, can “crack water” for the hydrogen, bond it to nitrogen to make ammonia which can be burnt in passenger car internal combustion engines, with far less devastating effects that massive oil spills because we are trying to get oil that is so deep the pressures overwhelms the blowout preventers.

The global warming concept, fraud thought it is, may just provide us with the final straw to cause the collapse we need to get our country back. Here’s why: Offshoring of manufacturing to China is based on very low transportation costs; i.e., cheap, abundant petroleum. If cheap diesel is no longer available for ocean-going ships carrying the junk toasters to us from China, the idea of cheap labor in China for production of goods for U.S. markets loses its economic viability.

Which means production must return home. Which means we have an opportunity to rebuild the old ideas of White yeoman farmers and small self-employed manufacturers — which means WE can opt out of the Jew-run globalist/financial engineering shenanigans/consumerist anti-White scheme. Which means the White-genocidalist Jews lose, and WE win, in the end.

Rick, Come off it. You sound like a total idiot . Why are you posting this rubbish? All the data have been fudged so that the jewish bankers can destroy capitalism and make a lot on the side by calling for the capping of carbon-dioxide emissions. Carbon credits trading would have made millions for Obama and his jewish friends on the Chicago stock exchange. Obama is now using the BP. blowout as a crisis to get his Cap and Trade legislation through Congress. As the jew with dual nationality Rahm Emmanual has stated that he “never lets a good crisis go to waste.” Rick, if leaving a carbon foot-print keeps you awake at night, emigrate to North Korea. Mann, using public funds,committed fraud when he fudged all the Medieval Warm Period data . Then the earth was far warmer than it is at present and as far as I’m aware there were no SUV’s or Power plants. Greenland was “green” and had Viking settlements. There were also years when the Thames in London froze over. In the Dark Ages,when I went to school we were taught that the earth’s climate had always changed and that this had absolutely nothing to do with the presence or not of humans. Now that jews have taken over the universities and education, liberal indoctrination has become the norm. More usefulç idiots for their goals.

“What has happened to Scandinavian genes? From being warlike, rapacious adventurous Vikings they have evolved to form the most egalitarian ,feminised, passive, collectivised societies that exist.. ?”

The same could be said of all Germanic nations and ethnic groups throughout the West. I think it’s called psychology, and has much to do with the hegemonic post-WW2 zeitgeist. Weird but true: the same could be said of Germanic Americans. You said it yourself: “even those adventurous ones that emigrated to Minnesota have recreated a similarly passive, egalitarian,leftist society.”

Dorothea, regarding your statement “Even your once proud centres like NASA have been affected. See the man-made global warming scam which is dominated by Jews; Mann and Schmidt”. Like it our not the scientific community has accepted that man-made climate change. From the Wikipedia page “Scientific Opinion on Climate Change” the statement sums this up “No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
We must take the scientific method seriously if we are going to be taken seriously. I am unapologetically an environmentalist, if we are going to create a better existence for ourselves we must first take care of the planet. After all, fish are not greater than the water the swim in or the aquarium they dwell in. A prime example lately would be the unexcusable B.P. oil spill. We should’nt fool ourselves into thinking that a certain segment of the Jewish community are the only psychopaths in town. Since multiculturalism leads to reduced public altruism or social capital government and a general loss of trust, tackling environmental problems such as loss of biodiversity and deforestation becomes increasingly unlikely. This provides us with the MORAL UPPERHAND to advocate the importance of a white majority. Environmentalistists are more apt to support restrictions on immigrations than libertarians. Here is a link to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) website on Immigration issues concerning the environment. http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/issues/population_and_environment/

Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think many Scandinavians fought in either of the world wars. Certainly in the 2nd world war, Sweden remained neutral and from what I gather Norway and Denamark caved in without much loss of life.

Dorothea: “What has happened to Scandinavian genes? From being warlike, rapacious adventurous Vikings they have evolved to form the most egalitarian ,feminised, passive, collectivised societies that exist.. ? How does genetics account for that?”

The Vikings were very tough by most standards but children compared to the most martial breed that ever existed, the Italians. Did you ever wonder what happened to them?

“Like the invading lion coalition, there was a huge payoff for the winners of war throughout human history.”

—

We were suckered into inflicting two disastrous fratricidal world wars on ourselves; killing (and being killed by) our racial kith and kin in the tens of millions – and then sold the con that ‘we’ had won.

I believe the real winners of those wars (and therefore the beneficiaries of the huge payoff) are now ruling our governments all throughout the West.

It was our race that lost those wars, no matter which contrived side one was on, and we have been losers ever since.

What has happened to Scandinavian genes? From being warlike, rapacious adventurous Vikings they have evolved to form the most egalitarian ,feminised, passive, collectivised societies that exist.. ? How does genetics account for that? As far as I’m aware there was no genetic input from other races over the years. I think even those adventurous ones that emigrated to Minnesota have recreated a similarly passive, egalitarian,leftist society

I don’t think that group loyalty is just about genetics. I think we need a spiritual ideal to rally around. Look at awful atheist, socialist multi-cult Britain. Before British Tommys sacrificed themselves for King and Country. Can anyone imagine wanting to lay down their lives for that adulterous, Muslim-loving idiot Charles and multi-cult Britain. ? What about Americans ? Before soldiers would voluntarily die for the ideals of freedom and democracy. But now freedom and democracy in your own country has been circumscribed by the jewish elite in co-operation with the white oligarchy. I think the war in Iraq opened everyones eyes to how much Israel is in charge of American foreign policy. Do you think people will want to fight any more wars on Israel’s behalf?

The other consistent strand of Salter’s thinking is that this horrifying state of affairs has resulted from the domination of elite forms of discourse by advocates for open borders among academic, media, and political elites.

Why is it that when you get to a certain level in society – say upper middle class – the extreme liberals are in such a majority? Is it just the effect of being indoctrinated during a lengthy ‘education’ or is it some genetic propensity in the most economically successfull classes that is being encouraged. The culture of critique seems to dovetail with a personality type which is commonest in the upper reaches of society which suggests it has been selected for in some way in the economically successful.

PHILOSOPHER Peter Singer. Evolution, he suggests, bequeathed people a small kernel of empathy, which by default they apply only within a narrow circle of friends and relations. Over the millennia, people’s moral circles have expanded to encompass larger and larger polities: the clan, the tribe, the nation, both sexes, other races, and even animals. The circle may have been pushed outward by expanding networks of reciprocity, à la Wright, but it might also be inflated by the inexorable logic of the Golden Rule: The more one knows and thinks about other living things, the harder it is to privilege one’s own interests over theirs.

Andrew raises a couple of key questions but I think he should read Mearsheimer on offensive realism. Relative to whites Jews have gained the only kind of power increase that is worth having: relative power. Hence Jewish losses are and will continue to be insignificant considering what they have achieved.

Der weiße Engel, I simply took Eliot Abrams word for it that cultivating the pro-Jewish White American population rather than insulting and attacking it would be good for the Jews.

However, since the Jews are as assured of a future as any population can be while Whites are in severe decline, the important question is not “what’s good for the Jews?” but “what’s good for Whites?”

I think Kevin MacDonald and Frank Salter are providing good guidance on that. Mass immigration, enforced multiculturalism, the culture of critique and rule by hostile alien elites are not good for Whites, and self-rule, pro-White culture and defended borders would be better.

So it seems a couple of people here apparently didn’t or couldn’t appreciate my little pun. Jew get it? Anyone not getting it, feel free to purchase a sense of humor somewhere. The question at the interior of the pun wasn’t really addressed, and that was how we derive ought from is. I guess nobody felt up to the task, and I can’t blame them.

Then Daybreaker gave his advice “If Jews were to do what is best for them, they’d … ” etc. I’m not sure how he claims to know better than the Jews themselves what’s good for them, and evidently they don’t agree.

As far it being self-evident that survival is the highest value, that’s one point of view. Survival as a cockroach could suit some people, and even probably be an improvement over their present condition.

@Daybreaker, “If Jews were to do what is best for them, they’d cultivate, cherish and carefully protect friendly non-Jewish populations.”

I am not sure that cultivating the non-Jewish population is truly “best for the Jews”. Would a healthy European population really react well to a non-native elite forever, even if that foreign elite was benign in its dominance? And the Jewish elite’s practices are probably not best described as benign, but at least partly exploitative. Could a European population, docile as they are in comparison to other ethnic groups, really be relied upon to remain tame in the face of non-native mischief? I suspect that the opposite is true, that Jews did have a well-founded fear of a majority ethnic group in the U.S., which could turn on them at any time, and certainly had in the past. From the standpoint of purely what was best for the Jews, a good argument could be made that removing the majority from power was important for long-term Jewish security.

“The problem is that Jews are running what amounts to a biological program…that is producing moderately sub-optimal results for Jews and absolutely devastating results for Whites.”

I agree that the results are devastating for Whites, but I think the results for Jews are pretty crappy as well. The birthrate for secular Jews is very low (lower than that for Whites), and combined with very high intermarriage rates, this is having a serious negative demographic impact on the US Jewish population. Your average secular Jew really does appear to be imbibing liberalism and absorbing the cultural decadence, with ill effects for all concerned. It is perhaps a little bit comforting that Whites will have some company on the road to ruin (the long-term prospects for Jewry can of course be expected to be worse).

“Aaron makes some good points. There is an unbridgeable chasm dividing is from ought…These problems would seem to stem from our inability to put morality on an objective footing.”

In other words, because you cannot “define” what exactly is moral, you cannot say for sure that people should attempt to perpetuate their genes and protect their ethnicity (ie, follow their genetic interests). You sound like someone who is lost in their philosophilizing and therefore cannot make any definitive statement about what is right and proper. A similar argument has been made to suggest that there is no such thing as “evil”, as there is no universal morality and so forth.

In my mind though, this high-fallutin’ attempt to “objectively define morality” is foolhardy, and makes those who play that mind game pawns that are easily persuaded to foolishness. It should be completely and blatantly obvious that every worthwhile species of living being should be preserved for the future, that this is right and correct according to every decent standard of morality. It is a tragedy when the genetic strain of any worthwhile creature is lost. To be open to the suggestion that it is okay for your genes to become extinct is to be open-minded to the point of hopeless idiocy, a fool who can accept any idea if it is sold to him in a sufficiently appealing package.

“Darwinism…can’t recommend a course of action, because the future is unknown.”

Nature does have a prescription for any living being, which is to survive and perpetuate itself. This law of nature is the basis for all life, and the reason we are here today is that our ancestors followed this law. To even question whether or not your particular genes should be reproduced into the future, especially whether this is “moral” or not is a line of reasoning that has the scent of insanity about it. This is the kind of twisted thinking that leads a species to extinction. A healthy being simply does not question the right or desirability of the perpetuation of its genes into the future.

I would guess that a conviction in the morality of pursuing your genetic interests is partly based on instinct and common sense. That is completely obvious to me, probably also to the vast majority of other humans, and certainly was to humanity throughout history. It is difficult to conceive of a person truly not thinking this is right, but again, people are capable of all manner of beliefs and behaviors. I have trouble understanding why people get massive body tattoos, grotesque body piercings or commit suicide. I suppose an open mind can be a very dangerous thing.

Der weiße Engel says: “Reducing the question of EGI to essentials, either you are unconditionally for preserving the White race as it currently exists, with all its warts and blemishes, or you are not. If you are not, then the fact that you may mean well with all your list of putative “improvements” doesn’t make you any less of an exterminationist.”

Edmund Burke had the opposite view: that which is without the means of amending itself is without the means of conserving itself.

If a fatal flaw in your operating system has been discovered and is being exploited to destroy your system, patching it is not “exterminationist” and leaving the gate open till your system is reduced to ruin is not “conserving” anything.

Der weiße Engel says: I know of no way to resolve this question, except to say that I think that most here would agree that “It is true for me, but not, necessarily, for Jew. I ought, but Jew ought not!”

Wait, Jews support a hyper-ethnocentric Israel while prescribing a total taboo on White ethnocentricity, and the issue is a White double standard of “yes for me, but not for thee”?

Kevin MacDonald and those who largely agree with him aren’t saying that Jews unlike all other natural creatures ought not to do what’s good for them. That’s nothing like what we’re saying.

If Jews were to do what is best for them, they’d cultivate, cherish and carefully protect friendly non-Jewish populations. If they did that, if they were for instance a steady force preventing the dumb goys from killing themselves with reckless immigration policies, because we smart ones have to look out for the dumb ones who like us, in our own interest, then I and many others would have no objection to Jewish elite directing the fate of Whites. After all, there is always an elite, it is never entirely representative of the non-elite, and as long as it is friendly a competent elite is better than an incompetent one.

The problem is that Jews are running what amounts to a biological program for high verbal intelligence, aggressiveness, intensity and hyper-ethnocentricity and that is producing moderately sub-optimal results for Jews and absolutely devastating results for Whites.

Jews are applying a Darwinian push, in effect, against those who are inclined to trust Jews, let them live in their lands and let them rise to high places, and in favor of those, like the Chinese, who aren’t going for this.

Culturally (which has biological implications), Jews are producing harsh outcomes for those who since the Second Vatican Council have had no operative antisemitic tradition. Meanwhile those who do have antisemitic habits and institutions, especially in the Muslim world, are better able to protect themselves, even if in other ways their culture is inferior. The antisemites are better able to compete effectively, because the Jews can’t bring themselves to give a sucker an even break which is what it would take to keep the philosemites a going concern in the long run.

The outcome will be worse for the Jews, just as it was worse for the Jews when Roman Pagans got out-competed by relatively antisemitic Christians. It will be worse for everyone who doesn’t like antisemitism and the harsh, often violent ethnocentrism of African-Americans. Stopping this would be win/win for Whites and Jews.

Unfortunately, as we see with Whites going into minority status in America, Jewish hostility is not going to stop. Whites will save themselves or they will perish. There are no other options.

“See the man-made global warming scam which is dominated by Jews; Mann and Schmidt.”

This is very interesting. The solution they propose, “cap and trade” will of course greatly benefit Jewish dominated wall street firms at the expense of the largely white Natural resource industry and consumers.

It could best be thought of as another massive transfer of wealth from white America and into Wall street’s largely Jewish pockets.

This is just reality. Genetic interests act on an instinctive level and have consequences. Caring about genetic interests is a proxy for caring about all the negative consequences that come if you don’t care about genetic interests.

Aaron makes some good points. There is an unbridgeable chasm dividing is from ought. As a naturalists’ description, we can observe the truth that organisms strive to perpetuate their own genetics, but ought they to? I know of no way to resolve this question, except to say that I think that most here would agree that “It is true for me, but not, necessarily, for Jew. I ought, but Jew ought not!” These problems would seem to stem from our inability to put morality on an objective footing.

This line of thinking also draws us inexorably into eugenics, and eugenics presents a difficult problem for White advocates, since redesigning the genetics of the White race could easily lead to its eventual replacement with something bearing no relation to the original form, perhaps not even any longer the same species. Reducing the question of EGI to essentials, either you are unconditionally for preserving the White race as it currently exists, with all its warts and blemishes, or you are not. If you are not, then the fact that you may mean well with all your list of putative “improvements” doesn’t make you any less of an exterminationist. Ironically, eugenicists too must be placed alongside those who, like the Jews, wish to eliminate the White race in its current form. The difference between them is merely one of means and reasons offered; but that the White race should cease to exist in its current form is a conclusion with which they both agree.

There is also the central problem with Darwinism that Aaron touches on. It’s descriptive, but not perscriptive; the theory can look backwards, but not ahead. It can tell us what changes occurred in a species and why, but it can’t recommend a course of action, because the future is unknown. For example, we can know (or at least, think we know) that the faculty of intelligence has served man well in the past, but not that it will continue to do so in the future. Future events may well turn out to show that intelligence as Homo sapiens evinces it is an evolutionary dead end. Certainly, many creatures that have been quite successful in the Darwinian sense have dispensed with it: coelacanths, cockroaches and other insects, horseshoe crabs, lamellibranchs, not to mention algae, viruses, and bacteria. It would seem there is not only no way to establish an objective basis for morality, but no objective basis for redesigning human genetics. Aesthetics, technical convenience, fashion, whim — these might all be profferred as reasons for any given redesign.

Dan Neil; It appears to me as though Jews destroy every area they come to dominate. The USA used to have a reasonably efficient legal system based on English common law. Now that Jews dominate, it appears that your legal system and your society has siezed up as people are scared to do things in case they are sued. I know for a fact that American patients who have agreed to cutting edge surgical procedures are being operated on in Brazil because the family can’t sue if the patient doesn’t survive. Take Universities, before the 2nd World War they were regarded as centre for the dispassionate pursuit of knowledge and learning. Now they are centres for brainwashing. Even your once proud centres like NASA have been affected. See the man-made global warming scam which is dominated by Jews; Mann and Schmidt. Now Jews dominate banking and finance they have created a system which has more in common with a cassino than one to raise capital for industrial development. Americans, their children and grand-children have now become wage serfs for Jewish bankers in alliance with the white oligarchy. A situation remarkably similar to that experieced by Russians and Poles. Jews have always dominated cinema and television. I can’t think of the last time I watched a good movie or a good program on t.v. I fear for the future of the USA as jews now dominate the media,your univesities ; the two political parties; the Senate and Congress; the Federal Reserve and banking system;all without firing a shot. Is this reverse Midas touch genetic, cultural or a curse?

Does it matter if it is genetic, cultural or a curse? The fact is that wherever Jews have settled sooner or later the group that tolerated them will do anything to get rid of them. How many chances in how many places, does one group of repeat offender get?

“I can give several reasons why genetic interest as a normative value is absurd. For instance, if it applies to ethnies, then it also applies to families. At the family level, a parent has more genetic interest in the child who’s most genetically similar to him. (It’s virtually impossible that all his children will be equally similar.)”

Aaron,

The differences would be slight.

“An allele that causes a minor skin rash might not be maladaptive, but it is bad. There is nothing in genetic interest to justify replacing that with a neutral allele.”

There sure isn’t. And why should it be replaced?

“Even more: if I understand correctly (I might be wrong on this part), replacing it with a neutral allele might even go against genetic interest, for instance if the neutral allele has a higher frequency in a competing population.”

If someone has a neutral allele then replacing it certainly would go against his or her genetic interest.

It would be cuckoldry on the level of a single gene, exactly the same result on the level of that one gene that you would get from your wife sleeping and being impregnated by another Man.

“There’s even a problem when you restrict it to biological criteria. Biological does not mean genetic. Early biological theories of race were purely environmental: Africans were dark because they were heavily suntanned, they were unintelligent because of the hot climate, etc. No matter how improbable are theories like that, they are logically possible, and their logical possibility illustrates a further absurdity. Suppose (very improbably, but possibly) that Africans were genetically the same as Europeans: as per the early theories, differences in skin color, intelligence, etc. were environmental. Would you suddenly support Africans the same as Europeans, based on genetic interest? The fact that the theory can lead to such an absurd conclusion (no matter how improbably) shows that the theory itself is wrong.”

The genetic distance between Europeans and Black Africans is extremely large. There’s no chance they’ll be found to be genetically equivalent to Europeans.

Now if there was a group of people in deepest Africa genetically identical to Europeans, and we didn’t notice this before because the sun gave them intense suntans and the heat made them seem lower IQ than they actually are genetically, then by all means we should suddenly start supporting them the same as Europeans.

@ANGRY JEW If Jews must have prominenece at least it could be one that benfits our race. In the long run the direction elite jewish neo-cons, zionist, and the multi-cult marxist are taking our ethnos is not good for them. But it could be stopped and we going to do just that.

The best story I ever heard with regard to the true value of philosophy is the following. A professor told a student that his (the student’s) existence could not be proved. Stipulated, yes, but not proved. The student tried every argument he could think of, striving to “prove” his existence to the professor – who rejected every argument as “compelling, but not a proof.” Finally the student had an idea: “I will now prove to you that I exist, beyond a doubt!” he declared.

Whereupon he punched the professor in the face.

It is not known whether the professor classifed this proof as analytic or synthetic.

Thus much for any non-empirical “philosophy” – any that neither starts with nor respects reality.

Oh lord. Another “reality doesn’t have to be this way, it could be something else” philosophy student.

Here’s how to bridge the (utterly false and risible) “is-ought” gap. If you jump off a 300-foot cliff and land on your head, you die. If you want to avoid dying in this manner, you OUGHT to avoid jumping off a 300-foot cliff and landing on your head. QED.

If life works by evolution, as demonstated by the whole of behavior in the animal kingdom (including former “hard cases” like “altruistic” behavior), and if the various subspecies of man (“races”) are part of the animal kingdom, then, if a man wants to live, he must support his kin more than he supports not-his-kin. If that doesn’t satisfy you, try seeing this conclusion as a categorical imperative in line with the universalization principle, with the fact of evolution as the noumenal reality.

For the rest of us, we see what works and what doesn’t. Successful human groups place all or most value in the in-group. Unsuccessful ones do the reverse (as the referenced article backs up). If you want a reality different from the reality you are in, you are always free to leave this reality.

As Bacon said, “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” But I guess simple truth is neither an argument *nor* a defense for philosophy majors named Aaron.

The proper response to Mirko Bagric is this:listen up you goddam cockroach. WE are gonna kick the darkies out because we don’t want them outbreeding us,outnumbering us and as a consequence of this, having the power to discrminate and murder European People’s in the nations they founded…so f… off you croation cockroach..here is a one way ticket to Chad.

WE don’t not need any more boring discussions along the lines:”Well professor Bagaric is not up to date on the scientifc literature” My eyes glaze over..gag me with a spoon, we do not need the scientific literature to justifiy our existetnce in Europe,America,New Zealand and Australia..just tell them to f..off and say so now nwhat are you going to do about it.

OK, I read the posts at Majority Rights defending Salter, though I skimmed over the rebuttals to objections that I myself didn’t have. I repeat: taking genetic interest as a normative value is bizarre. And ridiculous. And absurd.

It’s wrong in too many ways for me to cover them all in a blog comment. I’ll just hit some of the main ones. First of all, I’ll repeat what I said clearly before, for some who misread: one ought to support ones family and ethnie for a variety of reasons, including some raised by Salter in his well-argued article (which hardly mentioned genetic interest).

The “Up close and proximate” post was too stupid for words. Lots of hand-waving about “ideals” and “abtractions”, lots of meaningless nonsense like “life has an interest”, but no real argument for the value of genetic interest as an end in itself. If you say something’s good, the burden is on you to support that claim. I can give lots of reasons why you should support your family and your ethnie, none of which depend on genetic interest. There was not a single justification given for caring about genetic interest, just irrelevancies like, “Life is based upon the replication of genetic information. That is fundamental.” Duh.

I can give several reasons why genetic interest as a normative value is absurd. For instance, if it applies to ethnies, then it also applies to families. At the family level, a parent has more genetic interest in the child who’s most genetically similar to him. (It’s virtually impossible that all his children will be equally similar.) If genetic interest is an intrinsic good, then prima facie the parent ought to favor the most similar child over the others. If you don’t accept that norm, then you don’t believe in genetic interest.

Another reductio ad absurdum involves eugenics. The “defense” post at Majority Rights, which was less idiotic than the “proximate” one, quoted Salter saying that his theory supports the replacement of “maladaptive alleles”. But that’s just question-begging: it assumes that bad = maladaptive, which is what is being challenged in the first place. An allele that causes a minor skin rash might not be maladaptive, but it is bad. There is nothing in genetic interest to justify replacing that with a neutral allele. Even more: if I understand correctly (I might be wrong on this part), replacing it with a neutral allele might even go against genetic interest, for instance if the neutral allele has a higher frequency in a competing population.

Another example. The “defense” post says that one should support one’s own ethnie even if one is closer to a competing ethnie in the genes which don’t distinguish one’s own ethnie. Fine. But what if one’s closer in the genes that do distinguish one’s ethnie? For instance, a German national (i.e., an ethnic German) may be closer genetically to the French, even in genes that distinguish Germans from French. Should he, prima facie, support the French against the Germans? That would be absurd.

This gets to a more basic problem. Ethnies and families are social constructs which are based on biological reality. Even Kevin MacDonald agrees with that. When the social and the biological definitions diverge – and it’s a truism that they often do – which should we support? The “genetic interest” answer is unequivocal: the biological. But that’s absurd. A person’s national, ethnic, or family loyalty could reverse overnight as the result of a DNA test. A mother should favor her biological children over her adopted ones: the wicked stepmother of the fairy tales.

There’s even a problem when you restrict it to biological criteria. Biological does not mean genetic. Early biological theories of race were purely environmental: Africans were dark because they were heavily suntanned, they were unintelligent because of the hot climate, etc. No matter how improbable are theories like that, they are logically possible, and their logical possibility illustrates a further absurdity. Suppose (very improbably, but possibly) that Africans were genetically the same as Europeans: as per the early theories, differences in skin color, intelligence, etc. were environmental. Would you suddenly support Africans the same as Europeans, based on genetic interest? The fact that the theory can lead to such an absurd conclusion (no matter how improbably) shows that the theory itself is wrong.

I’m sure there are plenty of other reasons why it’s absurd to consider genetic interest an intrinsic good. Support your family, support your ethnie, support your nation. Forget about genetic interest.

Again the left places multiculturalism before biodiversity and the environment. Encouraging immigration to Australia for the sake of multiculturalism is not only bad because it leads to failing corrupt social structures, it’s ecocidal because Australia’s fragile ecosystems and nutrient poor soils can barely support the present population. It is interesting to note that in his book “Collapse” Jared Diamond (who is Jewish) states “Austalia and Britain are the only conuntries to which I have seriously considered emigrating”(pg. 380) even after eviscerating white Europeans in his book “Guns, Germs, and Steel”. Many Jews are now immigrating to Australia from South Africa because of high crime rates which have arisen from the collapse of an apartheid state, the very apartheid state they helped to bring down. http://www.forward.com/articles/12627/

By the way, Frank Salter is deadly accurate on the history and state of affairs in Australia.

His necessary, admirable focus on the issues of greatest importance to his readers, rather than an imagined or hoped-for “new belief of Salter’s that genetic interest is not a compelling argument,” would explain why he did not use any of his four and a quarter pages trying to teach a new audience the intellectual underpinnings of “genetic interests.”

There’s too much at stake in Australia to skip past the practical issues for policy-makers.

“genetic interest seems a bizarre thing to care about. Why should anyone care about it in the first place?”

There is quite a bit of evidence that people DO care about their genetic interests, and reason suggests that this has an evolutionary basis. Throughout the animal kingdom, virtually every species behaves in a myriad of ways that maximizes the survival prospects of its gene pool. Would it be “bizarre” for a person to greatly value their ethnicity, their people and kindred? And if you do value your ethnicity, and the unique gene pool you spring from, obviously you want it to survive in the future (thus you would naturally pursue your genetic interests). That would seem to be something not only obvious, but completely wholesome and healthy. On the other side of the coin, not recognizing the value of your ethnicity, and not being very concerned about the survival of your kind (and doing what needs to be done to preserve it), is something very unhealthy and perverse. For example, if Japanese did not care if their ethnic group survived or not, and did not pursue preferences for their own kind over other groups, it would not only be very strange, but be an obvious sign of the sickness of their people.

You suggest that we should not be concerned with genetic interests. We shouldnt care whether our unique genes are still around in the future? I suppose that would make sense for those that feel their genes are mediocre, or care nothing for the world that will exist after they have passed on. For a normal, healthy human though, the thought that their genes would become extinct in the future is something that should cause them great concern. I am quite certain that if asked, most people around the world would care very much about this, and rightly so. The fact that you do not indicates a possible lack of evolutionary fitness, something fundamental is missing in your mind I guess, something that even the most primitive New Guinea tribesmen probably possess in healthy measure.

Yeah, Aaron, depending on gnxp for an honest appraisal of Salter’s work is real, like, smart of you. After all, a blog founded by, and devoted to the interests of, South Asians living in the USA, is, of course, going to give you a balanced and reasonable interpretation of Salter’s work. No, agenda there, no sir.

And, while Kevin MacDonald’s review of Salter’s work has been excellent, how can you decide that you agree with gnxp when you haven’t even read Salter’s book.

Logically you can never get from an “is” to an “ought” but if that’s your only objection to acting on an interest you’re intellectually bankrupt.

Pleasures and pains are reasons why we do care how we act, but logically they are not reasons why we ought to care.

Life and death are reasons why we do care how we act, but logically they are not reasons why we ought to care.

Life and death apply not only to use but to those related to us. Relatedness is a reason why we do care about some people more than others, but logically it is not a reason why we ought to care.

We have to get across John Stuart Mill’s shaky bridge from “what is in fact desired” to “what is desirable” or morality is divorced from facts. Not just the facts of relatedness and genetic interest. All facts: anything that science can discover, any “is” statement.

Salter makes an excellent argument. I’ve seen the same argument lots of other places, so the most interesting thing to me was that he referred to “genetic interest” only once, and very obliquely at that (see footnote xi). I wonder if that was a rhetorical choice, considering that he was addressing a general audience, or does it reflect a new belief of Salter’s that genetic interest is not a compelling argument?

I haven’t read Salter’s book, but I’ve read reviews by MacDonald, at gnxp.com, and other places. I agree with the gnxp review: genetic interest seems a bizarre thing to care about. Why should anyone care about it in the first place? (MacDonald, in his review, seems to take it for granted that we should.) There are plenty of good reasons we ought to and do care about family, ethnie, and nation, but genetic interest isn’t one of them. I’m going by the summary in the gnxp.com review, which I assume represented Salter’s argument fairly.

Bagaric only appears to be concerned about poverty, but if it is suggested that direct aid to poor people in their own countries to build schools, hospitals, and increase social services is more efficient, less costly, and less destructive than bringing them here to “help” them, the suggestion is met with silence.

Prof. Bagaric believes that all the world’s ills could be solved if the poor people were allowed to immigrate to places like Australia. Instantly world poverty would be solved! What’s not to like?

I`ve heard people say similar things.

If we were to all agree to allow the world`s poor to emigrate to our countries, then I know exactly where they`d reside. They wouldn`t reside next to the Prof. Bagarics and his types, no, no. It would be the white lower classes who would see their communities, destroyed. And it`s them who`d lose employment etc. etc. etc.

Reminds me of Tony-war criminal-Blair. He preached the benefits of immigration to the people while he and his rich-friends are all safe and snug in suburbia.

In the end, the people who are assisting the destruction of the average white man, will themselves be destroyed by the Jewish elite.

The rich white folks fleeing to New Zealand , lol. There time will come.

Unless there’s two of them Prof. Mirko Bagaric the high-minded advocate of white people commiting genetic suicide is also an advocate of torture in pursuit of the war on terrorising people neocons don’t like.

Ethnic diversity is also associated with “reduced public altruism or social capital, evident in falling volunteerism, government welfare for the aged and sick, public health care and a general loss of trust. Ethnic diversity is second only to lack of democracy in predicting civil war. Globally it correlates negatively with governmental efficiency and prosperity.”

Yes, that’s what happened to my family. We were involved with churches and colleges. Once the Diversity Cult took over, we felt unwelcome and outnumbered. We lost trust in all institutions and stopped giving time and money. Why invest in something that no longer supports your preferences and prejudices? Why build something that will become completely mediocre?

Diversity is a spirit of take over, not creativity. It chased us away.

Dear Professor Macdonald, Here in the UK I have taken a first step in responding to Salter’s article by putting my name to a letter to my (Labour) MP opposing immigration and drawing his attention tothe article in Quadrant. A straw in the wind I know, but Salter’s arguments are powerful and your own political work does make an impact. Yours gratefully Lancashire lad